Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
The new system removes strategy and promotes luck and aliances.
|
GerMANic wrote
at 5:33 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
First off I would like to point out that I have problems with the game other than just the scoring so don't skip reading this post.
I noticed that in the begining of games the dice stacks are are more even now. Thus it is hard to find any territory in the first round that you have a decent chance of winning against. This removes strategy because when you are forced to only attack territories that are close in dice count to yours and you can't string together a large number of territories that you can take to get reinforcements with then the game turns into a luck fest with the person that either gets the luckiest attacking rolls or the luckiest defense rolls winning because the other people who lost have weak territories with hardly anyreinforcements first through second round. So by this point unless there is a powerfull alliance between the 3rd and 4rth largest people the game is pretty much over. And if you have an very unlucky game and your enemy defends a lot against you you get negative dominance points just because you couldn't get any good attacking rolls. Thus this game rewards one thing and one thing alone, luck. If I play a smart game of take and hold (can't do that anyway because there are hardly any stack size differences early game now) I will get bad dominance points unless I am lucky enough to get good rolls and take first or second place. This new system also only makes alliances more of a problem than before because they now just slowly whittle down all the other players and kill everyone elses dominance rating. So when one person is super big or there is a big alliance the only thing you can to do not get raped point wise at the end of the game is to go kamikazi and hope to achieve a good dominance rating since trying to take and hold territories and get decent stacks will only kill your dominance points in a long game where a pathetic alliance between the two largest people slowly destroys you. I could write more about this but this post is long enough. In conclusion the new system rewards early luck and alliances between the two largest people and it punishes the idea of taking and holding small numbers of territories in the first few rounds and working the advantageous stacks. |
|
East wrote
at 2:07 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST in the previous version of the game, luck was probably only 30% of a victory for a player. in the last version, starting wasn't everything and it was important to be conservative and slowly build, making smart moves and not really ever kamikaze-ing.
in the new version, luck constitutes about 80% of a victory. in this version, it's all about how lucky you are on the first turn. if you can win all your even stack battles, then it's over. luck dictates how well you will gain territory in the opening round because as germanic said, the dice stacks are far too even to have a chance. this version rewards kamikaze-ing and luck plays a considerable role in that. forget alliances, they only take up the 20% that's left. the new scoring more or less reduces this game to a mindless territory grab where the luckiest reign supreme. smart and conservative play be damned, kamikaze or die... |
|
chunkster wrote
at 2:21 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST There are a lot of untold alliances that i have noticed because if your in first and have the most places you get 3 or 4 people attacking you when it gets tot that 8 stack point. Nobody said anything its just the way it is. then you suicide yourself because you dont want your dominence points effected
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 2:22 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST So dramatic East.
We've debated about this quite a bit in the Sandbox. We also predicted quite a few players would be upset that the previous strategy wouldn't work. Also, we know that people will blame the new system for any bad games or losses. It may hurt at first but it is much better for kdice in the long term. |
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 2:22 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Sorry, I mean other thread.
http://aplayr.com/kdice/kdice/forum/topics/scoring%20update%20information/ |
|
|
East wrote
at 2:40 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST if you sit out, your dominance should go down as well. this too only rewards that away-ism that bad players pull so that they wont get killed before the legitimate players who are still in the game.
|
|
|
Cronus6 wrote
at 2:43 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST @Ryan: You may find East's post "dramatic" but it's somewhat accurate (I think his %'s are off).
I don't see how taking away various strategies and forcing players to play only a certain way can be "good" in the end. I'd say the more, different ways to accomplish the goals (both winning the map, and overall score) the better. In the end, it's YOUR game though. If you think it's better to only have one way to succeed, so be it. Slightly off topic: As I stated before, I enjoyed the alliances the most, and since there IS a "social" aspect to the game, (incl. adding friends and comments in profiles) I fail to see the logic in forcing a strategy that downplays diplomacy... @ Fuzzy Cat : Yes, I read that post... I agree with some, and disagree with other parts. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 3:05 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Cronus,
I've repeated this point a million times during the sandbox testing and over the past couple days so it doesn't hurt to say it once more. The new system does not reward only one type of strategy. You can still use the hide and survive strategy. What it does do is clarify the goal of the game which is to take over the map. With the previous scoring the main goal became trucing with 1st to get second, game after game. With the new rating system its still good to get second but you're not going to be a top player if you always get second. Coming to the conclusion that only one strategy works now is a short sighted knee jerk reaction to change. As far as East's point goes all this suicide and komikaze is just an overeaction to a rating adjustment and does not gain the type of points people imagine. |
|
JDizzle787 wrote
at 3:10 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST I have a couple of questions, that, if answered by a credible source, MAY help with understanding what this new scoring system means for the game and gameplay:
1. Does this new scoring reward players who play to dominate (a.k.a. get all territories in their reach)? 2. Does starting with a stable position on the board help you that much? 3. Are alliances more useful with this scoring version? 4. Is overall luck (or any luck at all) a larger factor in determining whether or not you get a positive (or negative) score? 5. Is there any type of intellectual strategy that can be developed with this scoring type? P.S. I will try to ask more if they come up, or anyone can ask themselves. |
|
Tech wrote
at 3:21 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST "The new system does not reward only one type of strategy. You can still use the hide and survive strategy."
But it's no longer rewarded. That's what you've been telling us all along, that and anyone who happens disagree with the change is just 'one of them', those people who "hide and survive", or worse yet, an 'away' player. It's really a rather effective bit of propaganda. A lot of people really hate those guys, so as soon as any dissent is labeled with 'one of them'... |
|
|
JDizzle787 wrote
at 3:23 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST 6. What is the largest amount of points you are able to lose?
|
